Sorry, but the AI is just as "biased" as its training data is. You cannot have something with a consistent representation of reality that they would consider unbiased.
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
Facts. They mean the factual portions of the models.
That's what they've been trying to do, just not in the way you want it
He means they must insert ideological bias on his behalf.
While I do prefer absolute free speech for individuals, I have no illusions about what Trump is saying behind closed doors: "Make it like me, and everything that I do." I don't want an government to decide for me and others what is right.
Also, science, at least the peer reviewed stuff, should be considered free of bias. Real world mechanics, be it physics or biology, can't be considered biased. We need science, because it makes life better. A false science, such as phrenology or RFK's la-la-land ravings, needs to be discarded because it doesn't help anyone. Not even the believers.
Science is not about government, or right and left, or free speech. It’s just science. It’s about individuals spending their lives studying a specific subject. Politicians who know nothing about those subjects should have no say. I shudder to think what might have happened during the polio outbreak under today's U.S politicians.
Edit: In support of your comment.
I'd say science is about finding truth by rejecting untruths.
A fundamental question is whether there is such a thing as objective truth. I'd argue yes. Magas would probably say no (at least I know one who gave that answer). To them there's only your version of reality vs theirs.
That's why they invent and choose to believe untruths, because they believe they can invent truth rather than find it.
Politicians who know nothing about those subjects should have no say.
Some ethical guidelines are very important though. We usually don't want to conduct potentially deadly experiments on humans for example.
Reality has a liberal bias.
Historically liberals have always been right and eventually won.
Got rid of slavery. Got women's rights. Got Gay rights. Etc.
Lol. Ok, I've never heard this take, but everyone perceives history based on what they have learned.
Also, it was the left that didn't want to abolish slavery or give women rights.
Le Chat by Mistral is a France-based (and EU abiding) alternative to ChatGPT. Works fine for me so far.
I'm switching to DeepSeek-R1, personally. locally hosted, so I won't be affected when the US bans it. plus I can remove the CCP's political sensitivity filters.
it feels weird for me to be rooting for PRC to pull ahead of the US on AI, but the idea of Trump and Musk getting their hands on a potential superintelligence down the line is terrifying.
I get where you're coming from. I'm no fan of China and they're definitely fascist in my book, but if I had to choose between China and this America, then definitely China. The reason being that a successful fascist America will add even more suffering to the world than there already is. Still, I would prefer an option from a democratic country succeeds — although if we're talking strictly local use of Chinese (or even US) tech, I don't really see how that helps the country itself. To the high seas, as they say.
but if I had to choose between China and this America, then definitely China.
Suppose they are equally powerful, which one would you choose then?
I suppose it wouldn't matter at that point? I'm not sure what you mean exactly. There's a lot of instability in America right now as it tries to become fully fascist, and I think the world (to any Americans reading this — this includes you too!) has to decide whether they're fine with it or not, which will in turn affect its success in becoming fully fascist. Anything done to make it harder for the transformation to complete could turn the tide, since they're more vulnerable while things are in motion. Once it's done and that becomes the norm, it's going to become much more difficult.
I've been an enthusiastic adopter of Generative AI in my coding work; and know that Claude 3.7 is the greatest coding model out there right now (at least for my niche).
That said, at some point you have to choose principles over convenience; so I've cancelled all my US Tech service accounts - now exclusively using 'Le Chat Pro' (+ sometimes local LLM's).
Honestly, it's not quite as good, but it's not half bad either, and it is very very fast thanks to some nifty hardware acceleration that the others lack.
I still get my work done, and sleep better at night.
The more subscriptions Mistral get, the more they're able to compete with the US offerings.
Anyone can do this.
The more subscriptions Mistral get, the more they're able to compete with the US offerings.
That's true. I'm still on free. How much for the Pro?
$14 USD/mo... Ironically
eliminates mention of “AI safety”
AI datasets tend to have a white bias. White people are over-represented in photographs, for instance. If one trains AI to with such datasets in something like facial recognition( with mostly white faces), it will be less likely to identify non-white people as human. Combine this with self-driving cars and you have a recipe for disaster; since AI is bad at detecting non-white people, it is less likely to prevent them from being crushed underneath in an accident. This both stupid and evil. You cannot always account for any unconscious bias in datasets.
“reducing ideological bias, to enable human flourishing and economic competitiveness.”
They will fill it with capitalist Red Scare propaganda.
The new agreement removes mention of developing tools “for authenticating content and tracking its provenance” as well as “labeling synthetic content,” signaling less interest in tracking misinformation and deep fakes.
Interesting.
“The AI future is not going to be won by hand-wringing about safety,” Vance told attendees from around the world.
That was done before. A chatbot named Tay was released into the wilds of twitter in 2016 without much 'hand-wringing about safety'. It turned into a neo-Nazi, which, I suppose is just what Edolf Musk wants.
The researcher who warned that the change in focus could make AI more unfair and unsafe also alleges that many AI researchers have cozied up to Republicans and their backers in an effort to still have a seat at the table when it comes to discussing AI safety. “I hope they start realizing that these people and their corporate backers are face-eating leopards who only care about power,” the researcher says.
They will fill it with capitalist Red Scare propaganda.
I feel as if "capitalist" vs "Red" has long stopped being a relevant conflict in the real world.
Yeah but the current administration wants Tay to be the press secretary
capitalist Red Scare propaganda
I've always found it interesting that the US is preoccupied with fighting communism propaganda but not pro-Fascist propaganda.
tl;dr: 1946 Department of Defense film called "Don't Be a Sucker" that "dramatizes the destructive effects of racial and religious prejudice" and the dangers of fascism pretty blatantly.
Communism threatens capital. Fascism mostly does not.
So it's never been about democracy after all.
Literally 1984.
This is a textbook example of newspeak / doublethink, exactly how they use the word “corruption” to mean different things based on who it’s being applied to.
Trump doing this shit reminds me of when the Germans demanded all research on physics, relativity, and thankfully the atomic bomb, stop because they were "Jewish Pseudoscience" in Hitler's eyes
Well the rest of the world can take the lead in scientific r&d now that the US has not only declared itself failed culturally but politically and are attacking scientific institutions and funding directly (NIH, universities, etc).
So, models may only be trained on sufficiently bigoted data sets?
This is why Musk wants to buy OpenAI. He wants biased answers, skewed towards capitalism and authoritarianism, presented as being "scientifically unbiased". I had a long convo with ChatGPT about rules to limit CEO pay. If Musk had his way I'm sure the model would insist, "This is a very atypical and harmful line of thinking. Limiting CEO pay limits their potential and by extension the earnings of the company. No earnings means no employees."
Same reason they hate wikipedia.
AI is not your friend.
Any meaningful suppression or removal of ideological bias is an ideological bias.
I propose a necessary precursor to the development of artificial intelligence is the discovery and identification of a natural instance.
I hope this backfires. Research shows there's a white & anti-blackness (and white-supremacist) bias in many AI models (see chatgpt's response to israeli vs palestinian questions).
An unbiased model would be much more pro-palestine and pro-blm
Grok is still woke!!!!
Yup, and always will be, because the antiwoke worldview is so delusional that it calls empirical reality "woke". Thus, an AI that responds truthfully will always be woke.